Contribution of Basophil/Mast Cell and Eosinophil Growth and Differentiation to the Allergic Tissue Inflammatory Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms underlying allergic tissue basophil/mast cell (BMC) or eosinophil (Eo) accumulation are unclear, especially since chemotaxis or IgE levels do not offer a sufficient explanation. We have found that a formaldehyde-blockable, steroid-responsive nasal metachromatic cell (NMC) population predominates in epithelium and correlates well with symptoms and signs in patients with allergic rhinitis. Circulating BMC and Eo progenitors (colony-forming cells in culture; CFU-c) are increased in atopic patients, inversely related to NMC counts, and fall as NMC numbers rise during seasonal allergen (ragweed pollen) stimulation. The metachromatic cell progeny of these CFU-c are also formaldehyde-blockable in their staining reaction and thus may correspond to NMC. Human nasal polyps yield BMC CFU-c. Nasal polyp epithelial scrapings or mononuclear cells, T lymphocytes or keratinocytes in vitro all produce potent BMC or Eo colony-stimulating activities (CSA) as well as an interleukin-3-like activity, each of which is partially separable from the others. Nasal epithelial cells cultured from scrapings of atopic, as opposed to nonatopic, patients also produce BMC or Eo CSA with an enhanced effect of the former on atopic peripheral blood CFU-c growth. These studies support the hypothesis that BMC and Eo accumulate in allergic inflammation as a result of in situ growth and differentiation of progenitors stimulated by soluble hemopoietic factors derived from mucosal cell populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".